Friday, April 25, 2025

Where Have You Gone, Physicist Bob Park? Our Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to You. Woo, Woo, Woo.

Voodoo Science superimposed on Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.
Voodoo Science, by Bob Park, superimposed on
Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.
Bob Park died five years ago this week. He had been in poor health since suffering a stroke in 2013. Park was a physicist and the director of public information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society. He was a leading voice against pseudoscience, both in his weekly column What’s New (which, when in graduate school, I used to look forward to seeing in my email every Friday) and in his books such as Voodoo Science.

I wonder what Park would say if he were alive today? I suspect he would be horrified. But I doubt he would have said that. He was not a whine-and-fuss sort of guy. His tools were humor, irony, and sarcasm. Here is what I imagine What’s New would have looked like this week.

Whats New, by Bob Park

Friday, April 25, 2025

1. VITAMIN A FOR THE MEASLES

The Texas measles outbreak continues. Over 600 cases have now been reported, which is more than for the entire year in 2024. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. encouraged parents to treat their children suffering from measles with vitamin A, and now children are suffering from liver disease because of vitamin A overdosing. Why don’t parents simply ask their pediatrician what to do? Because pediatricians are part of the conspiracy, of course!

2. IF WE IGNORE IT, IT WILL GO AWAY

The Trump administration is trying to undo all the progress fighting climate change that has accumulated over the last few decades. His thinking is: if you ignore climate change, the problem goes away. Besides, it’s all a HOAX! King Canute tried this. He commanded the tide to stop coming in. How do you think that turned out? Physics has a way of winning in the end, whether or not it’s politically popular.  

3. LAB LEAK

The Trump administration has rewritten the covid.gov website to advocate for the lab leak hypothesis for the source of covid-19. Don't worry that the evidence is flimsy! If covid resulted from a lab leak, then it’s the scientists fault. Blame those arrogant liberal elitists like Fauci. But watch out for the next spillover event! (Can I interest anyone in some bird flu?)

4. LYSENKO

Back in the USSR, when Stalin was in charge, a crackpot named Lysenko took control of Russian science. He didn’t believe in modern genetics, regardless of the evidence. Russian agriculture collapsed and millions died. Here in the United States, we have our own version of the Lysenko affair. Trump is Stalin, RFK Jr is Lysenko, and vaccine hesitancy and climate change are genetics. I fear the outcome will be the same, which is bad for science and worse for humanity.
5. HOORAY FOR HARVARD
The NIH (remember that place that used to be the greatest biomedical research institution anywhere, ever?) has stopped funding grants to several universities, including Harvard. HARVARD! Apparently these universities will not cave in to Trump's ideological agenda. What will happen next? Who knows. Maybe Trump will be stopped by the Supreme Court. Maybe the House and Senate will decide they’ve had enough. And maybe, just maybe, it will be the end of American science.

Friday, April 18, 2025

Asimov’s Corollary

Regular readers of this blog know that I am a huge fan of Isaac Asimov. I decided on a career in science in large part from reading Asimov’s books. As a teenager I particularly enjoyed his collections of essays from The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. He wrote an essay there each month about science: astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, medicine, and even mathematics. Every time he collected seventeen essays, he would publish them in a book. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I came to be a coauthor on Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology largely because of the influence those essay collections had on me when I was young.

Quasar, Quasar, Buring Bright, by Isaac Asimov, superimposed on Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.
Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright,
by Isaac Asimov.
This week I want to look at one of those essays that is especially germane today. It appears as the final chapter in the book Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright. The essay is titled “Asimov’s Corollary,” and was first published in the February, 1977 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Now, almost fifty years later, it seems more relevant than ever.  I urge you to get a copy and read it in its entirety. I will quote parts that I think are especially important. 

To help set the stage, let me note a few things.

  • When Asimov mentions “Arthur” he is talking about Arthur C. Clarke, his fellow science fiction writer and good buddy. Along with Robert Heinlein, Asimov and Clarke are considered the “Big Three” in science fiction.
  • Asimov loved to talk about himself. You might at first think he’s egotistical, but once you’ve read enough of his works you will realize it’s all a big act…sort of. It is one of the reasons I loved to read his essays.
  • By today’s standards Asimov and Clarke sound a bit sexist, assuming all scientists are men. This is, in part, a sign of the times when they lived. I won’t defend their sexism, but I’ll forgive them because of all the good they did and all they taught me.

Asimov writes:

In Arthur’s book Profiles of the Future (Harper & Row, 1962) he advances what he himself calls “Clarke’s Law.” It goes as follows:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong…
…Naturally when I read a paragraph like that, knowing Arthur as I do, I begin to wonder if, among all the others, he is thinking of me…
Asimov was an elderly scientist at that time, and was fond of making all sorts of predictions, many of which claimed something was impossible.
Doesn’t Clarke’s Law make me uneasy, then? Don’t I feel as though I am sure to be quoted extensively, and with derision, in some book written a century hence by some successor to Arthur?

No, I don’t. Although I accept Clarke’s Law and think Arthur is right in his suspicion that the forward-looking pioneers of today are the backward-yearning conservatives of tomorrow, I have no worries about myself. I am very selective about the scientific heresies I denounce, for I am guided by what I call Asimov’s Corollary to Clarke’s Law. Here is Asimov’s Corollary:
When, however, the lay public rallies around an idea that is denounced by elderly but distinguished scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion—the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.
But why should this be?… Human beings have the habit (a bad one, perhaps, but an unavoidable one) of being human; which is to say that they believe in that which comforts them…
Asimov then examines a few cases of people believing things without evidence. He concludes
Then why do people believe? Because they want to. Because the mass desire to believe creates a social pressure that is difficult (and, in most times and places, dangerous) to face down. Because few people have had the chance of being educated into the understanding of what is meant by evidence or into the techniques of arguing rationally.
But mostly because they want to...
When I read this, I think of people claiming (falsely, we know from the evidence) that vaccines cause autism; I think of people claiming (again, falsely) that cell phone radiation causes cancer; and I think of people claiming (still again, falsely) that climate change is a hoax. When I hear these assertions, made passionately and vehemently but with no evidence provided, I think that the elderly scientists (what I would call “the scientific consensus”) is right after all. And while Asimov writes “probably,” I would write “almost certainly.”

I miss you, Isaac Asimov. We need you now more than ever.

 

There is a cult of ignorance. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTV1iQyjFFU

 


 Isaac Asimov predicts the future.

Friday, April 11, 2025

Oops!

Finding a mistake in something you wrote is always annoying. When revising the chapter on Atoms and Light for the sixth edition of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, I found a whopper. It’s on page 402 of the 5th edition, in the section on Blue and Ultraviolet Radiation. Here is the offending sentence:
The minimum erythemal dose at 254 nm is about 6 × 107 J m-2.
I was trying to add a homework problem to the sixth edition in which I would ask the student to calculate how long it would take to get sunburn for some typical ultraviolet light intensity and I kept getting a ridiculously long time (years) because our value of 6 × 107 is way, way too big. The error goes back to the 3rd edition of IPMB, where you find a reference for that value:
Diffey, B. L. and Farr, P. M. (1991) Quantitative aspects of ultraviolet erythema. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 12:311-325.

The 3rd edition is even more specific, saying the value is in Table 2 in that paper. So, I obtained the article interlibrary loan (kudos to the Oakland University interlibrary loan office, who got the paper for me in about an hour on a Sunday evening). Here is Diffey and Farr’s Table 2. 


The value for minimal erythema at 254 nm is 6 mJ cm-2, which is equivalent to 60 J m-2. I think the incorrect value in IPMB arose because of a unit conversion error. There are 1000 millijoules in a joule, not 1000 joules in a millijoule. Such a mistake would cause a factor of one million error, which would result in an erroneous value of 60 × 106 J m-2, or 6 × 107.

You may have some questions.

  • Who did it? Although Russ Hobbie made the initial mistake (he was sole author on the 3rd edition), I read this number when teaching from our book, and when preparing the 4th edition and then again when preparing the 5th edition and never batted an eye. Apparently 60 MJ of UV light causing a person to have only a mild reddening of the skin didn’t bother me at all. I always tell my students to “THINK BEFORE YOU CALCULATE!” but I didn’t. 
  • If it was in the book, how could it be wrong? Don’t believe everything you read. Just because something is written in a textbook doesn’t make it true. Authors try their best to get everything right, but sometimes they make mistakes. Read critically and thoughtfully. (I’m giving this advice to myself here, more than to you, dear reader). 
  • What’s erythema? Erythema is redness of the skin. In our context, it is a the initial stages of a sunburn.
  • What is the “minimum erythemal dose”? Here’s what Diffey and Farr say: “The erythemal response of the skin to ultraviolet radiation is usually inferred from the minimal erythemal dose (MED). This value is determined by exposing adjacent areas of skin to increasing doses of radiation (usually employing a geometrical series of dose increments) and recording the lowest dose of radiation to achieve erythema at a specified time, usually 24 hours, after irradiation. The visual detection of erythema is subjective and is affected by unrelated factors such as viewing geometry, intensity and spectral composition of ambient illumination, colour of unexposed surrounding skin… and the experience and visual acuity of the observer.” So, it’s the dose where you say “Gosh, my skin is slightly red, I must have gotten a little too much sun today,” and then go about your business with hardly another thought. 
  • Why did Russ and I give the value for 254 nm? We mean that the ultraviolet radiation has a wavelength of 254 nm, which puts it in the UVC range (100–280 nm). UVC light can certainly cause damage and sunburn, but almost no UVC gets through the earth’s atmosphere to reach our bodies. Most sun tans and sunburns are caused by UVB, which is in a narrow band of wavelengths from 280–315 nm. Wavelengths much shorter are removed by the atmosphere, and the photons for wavelengths much longer do not have enough energy to do significant damage. The wavelength in the above Table 2 that’s most appropriate for this discussion is 300 nm. So, looking at Table 2, perhaps a better value for the minimum erythemal dose would be 24 mJ cm-2 or 240 J m-2. In the sixth edition of IPMB, we will use 200 J m-2 as our typical value (unless we change our minds…when it comes to revising a textbook, it ain’t over till it’s over). Warning: this value depends on factors such as your complexion, so don’t take it too seriously. It’s a ballpark estimate. Everyone is a bit different. 
  • Well, just how much UVB are we exposed to? We can estimate that from Figure 14.28 in IPMB. In the range from about 295 to 315 nm, the average value of the spectral dose is about 10 mW m-2 nm-1. If we multiply by a 20 nm range, we get 200 mW m-2, or about 0.2 W m-2. That value is for the sun straight overhead (noon near the equator with a clear sky). It’s consistent with other values I have found. 
  • How is all this related to the “UV index” that the weather forecaster talks about? The UV index is a linear scale (not logarithmic like the decibel scale for hearing), and to calculate it you multiply the intensity in W m-2 by 40. So, the value of 0.2 W m-2 that I quoted earlier corresponds to a UV index of 8. Here in southeast Michigan we can reach a UV index of 8 at noon on a cloudless summer day. In January we are at a UV index of about 2. Latitude and time of the year make a big difference, as does time of the day (in the morning and evening, sunlight comes in at an angle and must therefore pass through more atmosphere than at noon). 
  • So, how long can I stay in the sun before getting sunburn? On the beach in Hawaii during the summer at noon you can reach a UV index of about 12, so the intensity is 0.3 W m-2, which means 0.3 joules per second per square meter. If your minimum erythemal dose is 200 J m-2, then (0.3 J m-2 s-1) t = 200 J m-2, so t = 667 seconds or 11 minutes. That’s the minimum dose. I bet you could go a half hour before suffering from something you would call a serious sunburn. But if you stay out all afternoon surfing at Waikiki, it could be a problem. 
  • Can’t I protect myself with sunscreen? Yes, the sun protection factor (SPF) is the factor by which the intensity actually reaching your skin is reduced by the sunscreen. If you put on SPF 30 sunscreen there in Hawaii, your time for a minimum erythemal dose goes up from 11 minutes to five and a half hours. Maybe you can get away with all day, since the UV index will be lower in the morning and evening, extending your time. Just make sure it doesn’t get washed off in the water. You may have to reapply it often.

Let me apologize one more time for the bogus value of minimal erythemal dose in the 5th edition of IPMB. I feel bad about it. I sure hope no one used it to justify spending lots of time in a tanning booth. I call those things “cancer booths.” Stay away from them. 

I'll be proofreading the 6th edition of IPMB extra carefully. My motto will be: THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE!

Friday, April 4, 2025

Tomie De Paola

Sound,
written by Lisa Miller,
illustrated by Tomie De Paola

Children’s book author Tomie De Paola died five years ago last Sunday. I fondly recall reading De Paola’s books to my daughters Stephanie and Kathy when they were growing up. But how could Tomie De Paola possibly intersect with Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology? Well, you might be surprised! The first book that De Paola illustrated was Sound, written by Lisa Miller. It was part of the “Science is What and Why” series published by Coward–McCann, Inc.
Each book in the Science is What and Why series introduces fundamentals of physical science using a simple, attractive approach specifically designed for young boys and girls. Straightforward, lively language and distinguished illustrations which are a practical extension of the text present scientific facts as fascinating and exciting as the realm of the imagination.
As Gene Surdutovich and I work on the 6th edition of IPMB, I think we should strive for “straightforward, lively language and distinguished illustrations.”

De Paola’s drawings in Sound have much more charm than the figures in Chapter 13 of IPMB, which is about Sound and Ultrasound. Yet, his book covers topics that Russ Hobbie and I also discuss, such as the wavelength, frequency, and amplitude of a sound wave, and echos. I can’t help but think of De Paola as a kindred soul.

Sound appeared early in De Paola’s career; it was published in 1965. He continued illustrating books about science (I need to read The Popcorn Book), but he is best known for his children’s stories. Many of his books were autobiographical. I loved reading The Art Lesson and Tom with my girls. Although I’m not particularly religious, I thought his best work was The Clown of God.

Now, with my first grandchild due this summer, I’m looking forward to rereading many of De Paola’s books. I can’t wait.

 
Meet Tomie dePaola

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XINGTzl5U




Tomie De Paola on the television show Barney, another favorite of my daughters. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s01_ikK_SrQ

 


Tomie De Paola: Why Reading is Important 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7epT0qUaaX4&t=16s

 
 
The Art Lesson 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TUQ4F27HMo 

 

Tom by Tomie de Paola 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doFJAxHX5yw

 

The Clown Of God by Tomie De Paola 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnwlzj1xdmM